“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” - George W. Bush

Saturday, September 17, 2016

The EU’s architects created a head without a body: they built a unified political and administrative bureaucracy but not a united European nation. The EU aspired to transcend nation-states, but its fatal flaw has been its consistent failure to recognize the persistence of national differences and the importance of addressing threats on its frontiers.

The Return of Europe’s Nation-States

The Upside to the EU’s Crisis

Europe currently finds itself in the throes of its worst political crisis since World War II. Across the continent, traditional political parties have lost their appeal as populist, Euroskeptical movements have attracted widespread support. Hopes for European unity seem to grow dimmer by the day. The euro crisis has exposed deep fault lines between Germany and debt-ridden southern European states, including Greece and Portugal. Germany and Italy have clashed on issues such as border controls and banking regulations. And on June 23, the United Kingdom became the first country in history to vote to leave the EU—a stunning blow to the bloc.

At the same time as its internal politics have gone off the rails, Europe now faces new external dangers. In the east, a revanchist Russia—having invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea—looms ominously. To Europe’s south, the collapse of numerous states has driven millions of migrants northward and created a breeding ground for Islamist terrorists. Recent attacks in Paris and Brussels have shown that these extremists can strike at the continent’s heart.

Such mayhem has underscored the price of ignoring the geopoliti­cal struggles that surround Europe. Yet the EU, crippled by the euro crisis and divisions over how to apportion refugees, no longer seems strong or united enough to address its domestic turmoil or the security threats on its borders. National leaders across the continent are already turning inward, concluding that the best way to protect their countries is through more sovereignty, not less. Many voters seem to agree.

As Europe’s history makes painfully clear, a return to aggressive nationalism could be dangerous, not just for the continent but also for the world. Yet a Europe of newly assertive nation-states would be preferable to the disjointed, ineffectual, and unpopular EU of today. There’s good reason to believe that European countries would do a better job of checking Russia, managing the migrant crisis, and com­bating terrorism on their own than they have done under the auspices of the EU.

Philippe Wojazer / REUTERS

People observe a moment of silence to commemorate the victims of the terrorist attacks in Paris, November 2015.

EVER-FARTHER UNION

In the years after World War II, numerous European leaders made a convincing argument that only through unity could the continent escape its bloody past and guarantee prosperity. Accordingly, in 1951, Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany created the European Coal and Steel Community. Over the next several decades, that organization morphed into the European Economic Community and, eventually, the European Union, and its membership grew from six countries to 28. Along the way, as the fear of war receded, European leaders began to talk about integration not merely as a force for peace but also as a way to allow Europe to stand alongside China, Russia, and the United States as a great power.

The EU’s boosters argued that the benefits of membership—an integrated market, shared borders, and a transnational legal system—were self-evident. By this logic, expanding the union eastward wouldn’t require force or political coercion; it would simply take patience, since nonmember states would soon recognize the upsides of membership and join as soon as they could. And for many years, this logic held, as central and eastern European countries raced to join the union after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Eight countries—the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia—became members in 2004; Bulgaria and Romania followed in 2007.

A Europe of nation-states would be preferable to the disjointed, ineffectual EU of today.

Then came the Ukraine crisis. In 2014, the Ukrainian people took to the streets and overthrew their corrupt president, Viktor Yanukovych, after he abruptly canceled a new economic deal with the EU. Immediately afterward, Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, and it soon sent soldiers and artillery into eastern Ukraine, too. The EU’s leaders had hoped that economic inducements would inevitably increase the union’s membership and bring peace and prosperity to an ever-larger public. But that dream proved no match for Russia’s tanks and so-called little green men.

Moscow’s gambit was not, on its own, enough to cripple the EU. But soon, another crisis hit, and this one nearly pushed the union to its breaking point. In 2015, more than a million refugees—nearly half of them fleeing the civil war in Syria—entered Europe, and since then, many more have followed. Early on, several countries, especially Germany and Sweden, proved especially welcoming, and leaders in those states angrily criticized those of their neighbors that tried to keep the migrants out. Last year, after Hungary built a razor-wire fence along its border with Croatia, German Chancellor Angela Merkel condemned the move as reminiscent of the Cold War, and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said it did “not respect Europe’s common values.” But early this year, many of these same leaders changed their tune and began pressuring Europe’s border countries to increase their security measures. In January, several European govern­ments warned Greece that if it did not find a way to stanch the flow of refugees, they would expel it from the Schengen area, a passport-free zone within the EU.

Consciously or not, the European politicians advocating open borders have failed to prioritize their own citizens over foreigners. These leaders’ intentions may be noble, but if a state fails to limit its protection to a particular group of people—its nationals—its govern­ment risks losing legitimacy. Indeed, the main measure of a country’s success is how well it can secure its people and borders from external threats, be they hostile neighbors, terrorism, or mass migration. On this score, the EU and its proponents are failing. And voters have noticed. The British people issued a strong rebuke to the bloc in June when they voted to leave the EU by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent, ignoring warnings from the International Monetary Fund, the Bank of England, and the United Kingdom’s Treasury that doing so would wreak economic disaster. In France, according to a recent Pew survey, 61 percent of the population holds unfavorable views of the EU; in Greece, 71 percent of the population shares these views.

Back when Europe faced no pressing security threats—as was the case for most of the last two decades—EU members could afford to pursue more high-minded objectives, such as dissolving borders within the union. Now that dangers have returned, however, and the EU has shown that it is incapable of dealing with them, Europe’s national leaders must fulfill their most basic duty: defending their own.

Italian Navy / Handout via Reuters

A migrant is rescued by an Italian Navy helicopter in the Mediterranean Sea, August 2015.

BACK TO BASICS

The EU’s architects created a head without a body: they built a unified political and administrative bureaucracy but not a united European nation. The EU aspired to transcend nation-states, but its fatal flaw has been its consistent failure to recognize the persistence of national differences and the importance of addressing threats on its frontiers.

One consequence of this oversight has been the rise of political parties that aim to restore national autonomy, often by appealing to far-right, populist, and sometimes xenophobic sentiments. In 2014, the UK Independence Party won the popular vote in an election for the European Parliament—the first time since 1906 that any party in the United Kingdom had bested Labour and the Conservatives in a nationwide vote. Last December in France, Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Front won the first round of the country’s regional elections; then, in March in Germany, a right-wing Euro­skeptical party, Alternative for Germany, won almost 25 percent of the vote in Saxony-Anhalt. And in May, Norbert Hofer, a candidate from the far-right Freedom Party, narrowly lost Austria’s presidential election. (Austria’s Constitutional Court later annulled that result, forcing a rerun of the election that will be held in October.)

Some of these parties have benefited from the enthusiastic support of Russia, as part of its campaign to buy influence in Europe. Until recently, Moscow could rely on European leaders who were friendly to Russia, including former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. But now, as new parties take the place of established ones, the Kremlin needs fresh partners. It has given money to the National Front, and the U.S. Congress has asked James Clapper, the U.S. director of national intel­ligence, to investigate the Kremlin’s ties to other fringe parties, including Greece’s Golden Dawn and Hungary’s Jobbik. Yet such parties would be surging even without Russian backing. Many Europeans are disenchanted with politicians who have supported EU integration, open borders, and the gradual dissolution of national sovereignty; they have a deep and lasting desire to reassert the supremacy of their nation-state.

Individual countries will provide the kind of safety that Brussels can’t.

Of course, most of Europe’s Euroskeptical politicians don’t seek to disband the union entirely; in fact, many of them continue to see its creation as a historic victory for the West. They do, however, want greater national autonomy on social, economic, and foreign policy, especially in response to overreaching EU mandates on migration and the demand for controversial continent-wide laws on issues such as abortion and marriage. Many in the United Kingdom, for example, pushed for a British exit from the EU, or Brexit, out of frustration with the number of British laws that have come from Brussels rather than Westminster.

The bet against sovereignty has failed. But sovereignty’s resurgence has conjured up many dark memories of the nationalism that twice brought the continent to the brink of annihilation. Many observers now worry that European politics are coming to resemble those of the 1930s, when populist leaders spewed hate to whip up support. Such fears are not wholly unfounded. The strident xenophobia of Austria’s Freedom Party recalls the early days of fascism. Anti-Semitism has risen across Europe, sprouting up in parties that span the ideological spectrum, from the United Kingdom’s Labour Party to Hungary’s Jobbik. And in Greece, some members of the radical left-wing party Syria have advocated Greek withdrawal from NATO, a prime example of a growing anti-Americanism that could undermine the foundation of European security.

Yet affirming national sovereignty does not require virulent nationalism. The support for Brexit in the United Kingdom, for instance, was less an expression of hostility toward other European countries than it was an assertion of the United Kingdom’s right to self-govern. A return to nation-states entails not nationalism but patriotism, or what George Orwell called “devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life.” It’s also worth noting that one of the greatest threats Europe faced in the twentieth century was transnational in nature: communism, which divided the continent for 45 years and led to the deaths of millions.

BEYOND THE EU

A renationalization of Europe may be the continent’s best hope for security. The EU’s founders believed that the body would guarantee a stable and prosperous Europe—and for a while, it seemed to. But today, although the EU has generated wealth through its common market, it is increasingly a source of instability. The euro crisis has exposed the union’s inability to resolve conflicts among its members: German leaders have had little incentive to address Greek concerns, and vice versa. The EU also suffers from what the German Federal Constitutional Court has called a “structural democratic deficit.” Of its seven institutions, just one—the European Parliament—is directly elected by the people, and it cannot initiate legislation. Finally, the recent dominance of Germany within the EU has alienated smaller states, including Greece and Italy.

Meanwhile, the EU has failed to keep Europe safe. Since 1949, Europe has relied on NATO—and, in particular, the United States—to secure its borders. The anemic defense spending of most European countries has only increased their dependence on the United States’ physical presence in Europe. The EU is unlikely to create its own army, at least in the near future, as its members have different strategic priorities and little desire to cede military sovereignty to Brussels.

Many of the EU’s backers still insist that in its absence, anarchy will engulf the continent. In 2011, the French minister for European affairs, Jean Leonetti, warned that the failure of the euro could lead Europe to “unravel.” In May, British Prime Minister David Cameron claimed that a British exit from the EU would raise the risk of war. But as the American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr wrote in the 1940s, “the fear of anarchy is less potent than the fear of a concrete foe.” Today, the identifiable enemies that have arisen around Europe, from Russia to the self-proclaimed Islamic State (also known as ISIS), seem far more worrying to most people than the potential chaos arising from the dissolution of the EU. Their hope is that individual countries will provide the kind of safety that Brussels can’t.

SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS

From the United States’ perspective, the fraying of the EU presents a serious challenge—but not an insurmountable one. In the decades after World War II, Washington sought to contain the Soviet Union not just through nuclear deterrence and a sizable military presence in Europe but also by promoting European integration. A united continent, the thinking went, would pacify Europe, strengthen the economies of U.S. allies, and encourage them to cooperate with Washington to ward off the Soviet menace. Today, however, the United States needs a new strategy. Because the EU no longer seems up to the task of protecting its borders or competing geopolitically, more American pressure for Europe to integrate will simply alienate the growing number of Europeans who have turned their backs on the EU.

Washington need not fear the dissolution of the EU. Fully sovereign European states may prove more adept than the union at warding off the various threats on its frontiers. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the EU had no answer besides sanctions and vague calls for more dialogue. The European states that border Russia have found little reassurance in the union, which explains why they have sought the help of NATO and U.S. forces. Yet where the EU has failed, individual countries may fare better. Only patriotism has the kind of powerful and popular appeal that can mobilize Europe’s citizens to rearm against their threatening neighbors. People are far more willing to fight for their country—for their history, their soil, their common religious identity—than they are for an abstract regional body created by fiat. A 2015 Pew poll found that in the case of a Russian attack, more than half of French, Germans, and Italians would not want to come to the defense of a NATO—and thus likely an EU—ally.

A return to nation-states in Europe does not have to end in tragedy.

The return of nation-states need not lead Europe to revert to an anarchic jumble of quarreling governments. Increased autonomy won’t stop Europe’s states from trading or negotiating with one another. Just as supranationalism does not guarantee harmony, sovereignty does not require hostility among nations.

In a Europe of revived nation-states, countries will continue to form alliances based on common interests and security concerns. Recognizing the weakness of the EU, some states have already done so. The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia, for example—normally a disjointed group—have joined forces to oppose EU plans that would force them to accept thousands of refugees.

The United States, for its part, needs a better partner in Europe than the EU. As the union dissolves, NATO’s function in maintaining stability and deterring external threats will increase—strengthening Washington’s role on the continent. Without the EU, many European countries, threatened by Russia and overwhelmed by mass migration, will likely invest more heavily in NATO, the only security alliance backed up by force and thus capable of protecting its members.

It’s time for U.S. leaders and Europe’s political class to recognize that a return to nation-states in Europe does not have to end in tragedy. On the contrary, Europe will be able to meet its most pressing security challenges only when it abandons the fantasy of continental unity and embraces its geopolitical pluralism.

The Free Syrian Army, according to the Obama administration, is made up of “vetted moderates.” Here are his “vetted moderates” screaming “Allahu akbar,” “Death to America,”

“Christians and Americans have no place among us. They want to wage a crusader war to occupy Syria” and “The collaborators of America are dogs and pigs. They wage a crusader war against Syria and Islam.”

....."let us encourage you with an offer to strengthen our special relationship and forge....along with such free markets democracies as, among others, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, and Israel....a new liberty bloc."

Democrats may be in shock over Hillary Clinton’s disastrous showing on the campaign trail in the last week, but if she withdraws from the race, it will not be an easy task to unify behind a substitute. In fact, a new poll from Rasmussen indicates that a deep split remains from the primary race among the Democrats.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 48% of Likely Democratic Voters believe Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s primary rival, should be their party’s nominee if health issues forced her out of the race. Twenty-two percent (22%) say Vice President Joe Biden should be the nominee, while only 14% opt for Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, the current Democratic vice presidential candidate. Nine percent (9%) of Democrats think it should be someone else. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

The first thing to keep in mind is that the last thing the Democratic Party is, is democratic in its procedures. In the event of a withdrawal, they won’t be asking their voters who should head the ticket, it will be the Clinton cronies on the DNC who will meet behind closed doors to choose a successor. And it will not be Bernie Sanders, who shows dangerous signs of actually believing his rhetoric. (In fairness, a number of DNC members may have noticed that it took Bernie only a few weeks to cash in and buy his third house, a getaway manse on an island in Vermont costing more than his reported net worth, demonstrating his pliability.)

Inevitably, should Hillary be forced to withdraw, she will want to name her successor, and one must assume that would be Kaine. That leaves the Obama faction of the party shut out. While Biden is probably regarded as loyal, his intellectual limitations would be worrisome, unless he agrees to install Valerie Jarrett as his controller executive aide.

The feminist faction of the part would not be happy about losing their chance for a female president. Would they argue for Michelle Obama as a substitute? One can’t rule that out, for it would have the extra advantage of mobilizing black voters, especially female black voters. Mrs. Obama’s return to the campaign trail as a “surrogate” for Hillary has to have planted a few ideas in the heads of her supporters as well as Herself.

(In fairness, a number of DNC members may have noticed that it took Bernie only a few weeks to cash in and buy his third house, a getaway manse on an island in Vermont costing more than his reported net worth, demonstrating his pliability.)

This is the kind of bullshit one can expect to find in the American Thinker. Cash in? Third House? Pliability? This one sentence encapsulates everything that is wrong with the American Thinker. It implies (hell, it outright confirms) that the conspiracy theories surrounding the recent Sanders purchase of a house on Lake Champlain. One, that he now has three homes belying his image that he is a man of the people. Two, how could he afford this house unless he was lying about his personal wealth or he had somehow cashed in from his run for president.

All lies. Sanders doesn't own three homes he owns two. They were able to purchase the home on Lake Champlain because they sold a house in Maine his wife had inherited that had been in the family for decades. As for 'cashing in' on the primary run, there are strict laws in place on how that money can be spent and it sure ain't on personal expenses like vacation homes.

The fact that the faux farmer used bold text to emphasize the lies put out by that rag encapsulates what you should know about him.

As for meat-cleaver man, all the reports say he was a homeless guy living out of his car, a vagrant criminal who had been arrested numerous times before DUI, criminal trespassing, criminal possession of a weapon, and criminal menacing with a weapon.

But what do you emphasize in the story? Is it about any of this? No. Is it about the fact that despite all of this the guy is still out on the street? No. Your only emphasis is that he is Arab. You emphasize that he is Muslim though you offer no proof of it except in stories you read in tabloids like American Thinker or jihadwatch wher the stories contain snappy phrases like a 'jihad waiting to happen'.

This guy may have been Muslim growing up, but I doubt if he is now. He's a criminal and a sociopath. I'd say his main concerns these days is who his next victim is and where his next meal will come from (though I guess that's pretty much been determined now). Jihad is the last hing on his mind.

Yet, you continue to bring this story up for the last three days.

The appeal to the basest and the outre is strong in you, grasshopper.

A sad commentary on one of our country's more notorious English recruits.

[These are just nationally recognized 'appreciation' months. There isn't enough room to put down all the state-level designated months. If you are a minority group and you want a month just ask for it.]

January

National Mentoring Month (United States)[1]

National Codependency Awareness Month

February

Black History Month (United States and Canada)[2][3]

American Heart Month (United States)[4][5][6]

March

Irish-American Heritage Month[7]

Women's History Month[2][8][9]

Youth Art Month

April

Autism Awareness Month[10]

National Child Abuse Prevention Month[11][12]

Confederate History Month (United States)

Financial Literacy Month[13]

Jazz Appreciation Month

Mathematics Awareness Month

National Poetry Month

National Volunteer Month

Sexual Assault Awareness Month[14][15]

May

Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month[2][16]

National Bike Month

ALS Awareness Month (United States)[17]

Celiac Awareness Month

National Foster Care Month[18]

National Guide Dog Month (2008, 2009)

Haitian Heritage Month

Jewish American Heritage Month[8]

Mental Health Awareness Month[19]

National Mobility Awareness Month

National Stroke Awareness Month

National Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month[20]

June

African-American Music Appreciation Month[21][22]

LGBT Pride Month[2][23][24]

July

National Ice Cream Month[25] (United States)

August

September

Mold Awareness Month

National Guide Dog Month (USA)

National Hispanic Heritage Month (USA; September 15 to October 15)[2][26]

National Honey Month

National Life Insurance Month

Pain Awareness Month[27]

National Prostate Health Month[28]

National Sickle Cell Awareness Month[29]

National Spinal Cord Injury Awareness Month[30]

October

National Domestic Violence Awareness Month[31]

National Bullying Prevention Month (USA)

National CyberSecurity Awareness Month[32][33]

National Disability Employment Awareness Month[2][8][34]

National Hispanic Heritage Month (U.S.; September 15 to October 15)[26]

The only person I've seen that said this guy is Palestinian is you. Where did you get that, jihadwatch? Regarding Palestine, who said he did want to go back, Pamela Geller? Even if he did want to go back, how does that verify he is a practicing Muslim? It shows how little you dolts know about the Palestinians and Gaza. Hamas is a secular nationalistic organization. Why the hell do you think ISIS and Islamic Jihad are at war with them?

On the synagogue meme. Who said he was staking out a synagogue? He was arrested for carrying knives near a synagogue. I've seen he was arrested but nothing showing he was convicted of any crime in the incident or any verdict at all.

Why don't put up some actual, verifiable facts. Then at least you would be making a reasonable argument. People might even agree with you. However, all you do is put up assumptions and innuendo from dolts like Spencer, Geller, and Rick Moron. Doesn't matter what the subject. The post you put up on Sanders new house is a perfect example.

You continually embarrass yourself but lack the self-awareness to realize it.

I'm watching a baseball game at the moment and it was just announced that this month is Spanish American Appreciation Month.

I posted this above...

QuirkSat Sep 17, 05:27:00 PM EDT

[These are just nationally recognized 'appreciation' months. There isn't enough room to put down all the state-level designated months. If you are a minority group or a charity and you want a month just ask for it. It doesn't cost these state legislators anything to make some of their voters happy.]

From Wiki...

January

National Mentoring Month (United States)[1]

National Codependency Awareness Month

February

Black History Month (United States and Canada)[2][3]

American Heart Month (United States)[4][5][6]

March

Irish-American Heritage Month[7]

Women's History Month[2][8][9]

Youth Art Month

April

Autism Awareness Month[10]

National Child Abuse Prevention Month[11][12]

Confederate History Month (United States)

Financial Literacy Month[13]

Jazz Appreciation Month

Mathematics Awareness Month

National Poetry Month

National Volunteer Month

Sexual Assault Awareness Month[14][15]

May

Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month[2][16]

National Bike Month

ALS Awareness Month (United States)[17]

Celiac Awareness Month

National Foster Care Month[18]

National Guide Dog Month (2008, 2009)

Haitian Heritage Month

Jewish American Heritage Month[8]

Mental Health Awareness Month[19]

National Mobility Awareness Month

National Stroke Awareness Month

National Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month[20]

June

African-American Music Appreciation Month[21][22]

LGBT Pride Month[2][23][24]

July

National Ice Cream Month[25] (United States)

August

September

Mold Awareness Month

National Guide Dog Month (USA)

National Hispanic Heritage Month (USA; September 15 to October 15)[2][26]

National Honey Month

National Life Insurance Month

Pain Awareness Month[27]

National Prostate Health Month[28]

National Sickle Cell Awareness Month[29]

National Spinal Cord Injury Awareness Month[30]

October

National Domestic Violence Awareness Month[31]

National Bullying Prevention Month (USA)

National CyberSecurity Awareness Month[32][33]

National Disability Employment Awareness Month[2][8][34]

National Hispanic Heritage Month (U.S.; September 15 to October 15)[26]

LGBT History Month (U.S.)[35]

Polish American Heritage Month

National Work and Family Month[36]

Black History Month (United Kingdom)

November

Native American Indian/Alaska Native Heritage Month[2][8][37]

National Novel Writing Month

December

National Egg Nog Month[38]

National Fruit Cake Month[38]

National Pear Month[38]

National Idaho Hick Month

If you can use google, you can find Catholic American Appreciation/Heritage Month, Italian American...and on and on.

Inspector Quirseau failed at the Inspecting bidness for obvious reasons....he can't put two and two together....he went back to his internet medical clinic bidness....and is currently on the run from the Michigan State Medical Examiner.....

"Clinton returned to the campaign trail following her pneumonia diagnosis. We wish her a speedy recovery, of course.

She also managed a true pop culture clunker upon her return. Team Hillary cranked up the James Brown classic "I Feel Good" to mark her return to full health. Makes sense, right? Who doesn't love a classic song with an uplifting message?

Only Brown died in 2006 after being hospitalized for, you guessed it, pneumonia.

“This has all been badly done. New polls have come out that show Clinton down 5 points in Ohio, down in Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada and Iowa — and none of these polls reflect more than just one day’s sample. A new CBS Tracking Poll now shows her leading Trump 42 percent to 40 percent. I probably shouldn’t speculate, but I suspect she will lose a few more points,” Mr. Zogby continues.

“But the real crisis here is how she gets back on track. She will most likely have a good debate performance on Sept. 26. But then she still has to deal with the ‘deplorables’ thing because of what it reveals about her and her supporters. And then the release of her emails in October. She is in a tough spot.”

Barack Obama is not the only Democratic leader coming under heavy fire from law enforcement officials; Hillary Clinton has now effectively made herself a persona non grata among cops, too.

The National Fraternal Order of Police, the largest police union in the country, with some 335,000 members, says they are "disappointed and shocked" by Clinton's refusal to seek the endorsement of law enforcement.

"It sends a powerful message. To be honest with you, I was disappointed and shocked," NFOP president Chuck Canterbury told The Hill on Friday. "You would think with law enforcement issues so much in the news that even if she had disagreements with our positions, that she would’ve been willing to say that."

Clinton signaled no interest in seeking the union's endorsement — something her husband received back in 1996 — by declining to return a questionnaire sent by the organization to the presidential candidates.

"We were talking to the highest levels of the campaign, and we had all indications that she was going to return the questionnaire," said Canterbury. "And on the deadline date we were advised that they declined."http://www.dailywire.com/news/8170/police-union-shocked-hillary-clintons-response-james-barrett

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is stealing from her poorest supporters by purposefully and repeatedly overcharging them after they make what’s supposed to be a one-time small donation through her official campaign website, multiple sources tell the Observer.

The overcharges are occurring so often that the fraud department at one of the nation’s biggest banks receives up to 100 phone calls a day from Clinton’s small donors asking for refunds for unauthorized charges to their bankcards made by Clinton’s campaign. One elderly Clinton donor, who has been a victim of this fraud scheme, has filed a complaint with her state’s attorney general and a representative from the office told her that they had forwarded her case to the Federal Election Commission.

Quirk's been in a real stew lately. He's been buying Hillary's lies about her health hook, line and sinker. I'm even beginning to wonder if Quirk isn't a closet Hillary supporter, perhaps unconsciously.

More nonsense from the older Bobbsey Twin. I actually went to the 9:00 minute mark on that video (the first time you put it up) and watched it until the doctor stopped being a doctor and instead launched into his political rant. The part I saw on the Parkinson's seemed pretty convincing.

My wife and I were watching the convention when the balloons came down and were shocked at Hillary's reaction. Truly bizarre. We didn't notice the eye shifting your guy mentioned but it was pretty pronounced when he did point it out.

That being said, I can't get too excited about it. As I've mentioned numerous times, I won't be voting for either of these dolts. On the other hand, I take immense pleasure in pointing out the buffoonery of you two guys.

Hell, over the past week between you two you must have put up between 50 and 100 posts on this subject. You put up that same post about Hillary's medical record a number of times. Bob's put up enough speculation on Hillary's health to cover every pathology from stroke, to seizure, to leprosy, to Zika virus from numerous tabloids, conspiracy theory sites, and faux news networks.

When you guys get tired of being laughed at you put up silly posts like this...

Dr. Quirk has diagnosed Hillary as being a little dehydrated, and having a slight touch of the pneumonia, the non contagious bacterialogical (sic) type pneumonia.

Yes folks, fresh from the faux farmer's ass more B.S. Bob claimed the initial story on the 9/11 incident and the dehydration story were bull. In response, I made a simple observation to the effect it is easy to become dehydrated and being dehydrated can lead to some serious consequences.

From that, Bob concludes I 'diagnosed' Hillary as having 'dehydration' AND 'pneumonia' and to put a cherry on his pile of shit he specifies that I said it was 'non contagious bacterialogical type pneumonia'. Pure nonsense. I've never diagnosed Hillary's illness. What I have done is laugh at your efforts.

And I'm sure you'll be wanting to speak to him about that 'bacterialogical' comment, trish. Noblesse oblige. You do seem to have assumed the role of blog school marm, after all.

And then, to keep up the Bobbsey Twin's reputation, you double down on Bob's B.S. offering up this pile...

He should have revealed his extensive record of swearing that Muslims pose no threat to Europe or the U.S.A.

Another lie, or perhaps, simply another of your noxious brain fart.

You two guys are a hoot when you get fixated on this shit. If you had a brain between you, you'd be dangerous. No wonder Rufus doesn't waste his time putting up with you trolls.

The overcharges are occurring so often that the fraud department at one of the nation’s biggest banks receives up to 100 phone calls a day from Clinton’s small donors asking for refunds for unauthorized charges to their bankcards made by Clinton’s campaign.

BEIRUT, Lebanon — The United States acknowledged on Saturday that its warplanes had carried out an airstrike in Syria that resulted in the deaths of Syrian government troops. American military officials said the pilots in the attack, in the eastern province of Deir al-Zour, believed they were targeting the Islamic State.

Russia’s defense ministry said the United States attack had killed 62 Syrian troops, wounded 100 more and opened the way for an Islamic State offensive.

The episode comes at a time of escalating tensions in Syria. A partial cease-fire that started on Monday continues to steadily unravel after it was declared with much fanfare by the United States and Russia.

A statement by United States Central Command said that the planes stopped the attack after a warning from Russia that the strikes could be hitting Syrian troops.

A senior Obama administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the strike was still being investigated, said the United States had relayed its regrets to the Syrian government through the Russians for the “unintentional loss of life of Syrian forces” fighting the Islamic State.Russia, the Syrian government’s main ally, said it would call an emergency United Nations Security Council meeting to discuss the strikes.

The Syrian government insisted that the strike was not a mistake. Instead, the government said it was “a very serious and flagrant aggression” that aided the Islamic State and proved its long-held assertion that the United States supports the jihadist group as part of an effort to oust President Bashar al-Assad…

Is there anyone who can say they know what is actually going on in Syria?.

“This message for Muslims peoples! Our brothers in Syria & Palestine & Iraq & Burma & Chichan & Ifriquia & asia are dying Stop follow and imitate western people in Wrong culture And forget about your religion. This message is for The governments of all worlds! I do not admit to the Wrong law. My law is quran. We are going back. Asalamu Alaikum.”

This is a call to Muslims in the U.S. to cast off obedience to American law and start to fight against non-Muslims. With some Muslims here it will resonate.

muslim-website-hack

“3 local Arab-American sites hacked with calls for jihad,” by George Hunter, The Detroit News, September 17, 2016:

Dearborn police have contacted the FBI and are investigating an apparent hack Thursday of the websites of at least three local Arab-American organizations and dozens of others.

“Arise, O Muslims for jihad,” reads the message posted to the websites of the American Human Rights Council, the American Arab & Muslim Political Action Committee and the American Muslim Leadership Council, all in Dearborn.

The homepages were taken over by a grammatically incorrect missive, which states the sites were “Hacked by MuslimsLeets … Muj4hida Muslmist Hacker.”

I was borned by a haystack on a moonless windy mid-night in a rocky land of pines and poor wheat crops.

That's what I done told Quart....*************

September 18, 2016

Obama Was the Original Birther

By Brian Joondeph

.....Remember that in 1991, the internet was just in process of being invented by Al Gore. One couldn’t run a web search for Barack Obama and his background and education. As president of the Harvard Law Review, he published nothing. As he was a recent law school graduate, there would be little in the public library about his background. The New York Times published a short article in 1990 announcing Obama’s election to the Harvard Law Review, but with no mention of his being born in Kenya. In fact, the article in the Times stated that he was born in Hawaii.

The logical conclusion is that what the literary editor wrote for the Obama bio, particularly the part of him being born in Kenya, had to come from Obama himself. Why would an editor cherry pick some information from the New York Times article and manufacture something else about his place of birth?

This is the Times bio. “His late father, Barack Obama, was a finance minister in Kenya and his mother, Ann Dunham, is an American anthropologist now doing fieldwork in Indonesia. Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii.” The literary bio said essentially the same thing, except changing the birthplace to Kenya. This bio was written by a literary agency, not a politician’s press office. Literary publishing is about accuracy and it’s a stretch to believe the agent made this change without first running it by Obama.

The “Born in Kenya” certainly spices up the bio and that may have been the sole reason for Obama to alter his birthplace. After all, his goal at this point was to sell books. What’s a little stretch or exaggeration compared to the greater good of launching his writing career? Much like, “If you like your insurance” or “If you like your doctor.” Other tall tales used to promote a lofty agenda.

As Obama’s school records are sealed, there is no way of knowing if he promoted himself as “foreign born” earlier in his educational career. Perhaps for admission preference or financial aid, but pure speculation in the absence of his actual school records. Meaning that his literary bio represents the first promotion of his being born in Kenya.

If this was a mere oversight, it would have quickly been corrected. Instead 16 years went by with the bio neither revised nor updated. It was finally corrected in 2007 when Obama announced his Presidential candidacy. During that Presidential campaign, the birth issue was not raised by Obama’s opponent John McCain. McCain actually went so far as to chastise anyone for even mentioning Obama’s middle name of Hussein.

Instead it was Obama’s Democrat primary opponent, Hillary Clinton, who picked up on the birth issue. Not Donald Trump who was busy building hotels and hosting reality shows at the time. Mrs. Clinton’s surrogate Sid Blumental was pushing the Obama birth story so hard that McClatchy sent a reporter to Kenya to investigate. And don’t forget the now famous photo of Obama in Muslim garb distributed by the Clinton campaign in 2008 as, “A last-ditch battle to keep her hopes of the White House alive”.....

Magnificent Ronald and the Founding Fathers of al Qaeda

“These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.” — Ronald Reagan while introducing the Mujahideen leaders to media on the White house lawns (1985). During Reagan’s 8 years in power, the CIA secretly sent billions of dollars of military aid to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan in a US-supported jihad against the Soviet Union. We repeated the insanity with ISIS against Syria.